Jump to content

Euro 4 Road Fund Licence


Thurlestone

Recommended Posts

I was told that my 2008 Knaus Sun Ti had a Euro 4 engine and should attract a better road fund licence rate than previous engines. When I applied for renewal of my RFL I asked to pay £250 rather than the amount attached to the Euro 4 section of the DVLA web. I contacted them and they requested proof that it was Euro 4. I gained this from Renault UK and forwarded it to them as proof but received the reply that it is not Euro 4 as it was first registered as a motorhome and PLG must be applied as the vehicle is 3500kg. the vehicle is however not that weight, it is less and can be loaded to this weight. Has anyone else had this situation and gained a resolve? I would also be grateful to receive any other thoughts on this matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

I've just had a look at the Gov.uk website Link and think I understand your predicament.

 

Basically your MH is registered correctly as a Motorcaravan and as such falls into the same tax band as a car. Your request to pay the Euro 4 rate is only applicable to PLG and NOT cars so has been rejected. Also it would appear that a 2008 reg would fall between Euro 4 and Euro 5 so would not offer any benefits. I think you where told porkies when you bought your MH.

Do not change your tax class to PLG to try and pay less as this has many other implications such as speed limits and MOT classes.

 

Your only other option to pay less is to get your MH up-plated to a GVW over 3,500 kg and then you would fall into the PHGV category and would pay £165.

 

Keith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything classified and registered as a Motorcaravan on the V5C will not be subject to emissions-related taxing, but fall into taxation class TC11 (for a GVW up to and including 3500kg) and be taxed at the non-graduated PLG (Private Light Goods) rate, or taxation class TC10 (for a GVW of more than 3500kg) and be taxed at the non-graduated PHG (Private Heavy Goods) rate.

 

It therefore appears that your vehicle is being treated correctly, and that you may have been misled about taxation classes and any reduction.

 

Certain vehicles which have been first registered before they are converted (and therefore get initially classified as something other than a motorcaravan) have been placed in categories other than TC10 or 11.

 

Also, AIUI, the concessions for EuroIV LGVs (over and above the standard LGV rate) applied only to "early adopters", and were removed for registrations after the end of 2006, so even if it had been classified as LGV (Tax Class TC36) your vehicle would not be eligible for any reduction.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A full listing of the current rates of vehicle tax (Vehicle Excise Duty) is provided in the DVLA document V149 (available on-line).

 

As has already been advised, a vehicle classified as a "MOTOR CARAVAN" with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 3500kg and an engine-capacity over 1549cc should be registered in Tax Class 11 (Private or light goods vehicles (PLG)). The 12-month and 6-month rates for such vehicles are currently £220 and £121 respectively (increasing to £225 and £123.75 from 1 April 2013).

 

Tax Class 36 relates to "Euro 4 light goods vehicles" with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 3500kg. To qualify for TC36 a vehicle must be

 

- a light-goods vehicle (which a "Motor Caravan" is not)

- Euro 4 compliant

- registered between 1 March 2003 and 31 December 2006

 

The 12-month and 6-month VED rates for TC36 vehicles are currently £135 and £7.25 respectively (increasing to £140.00 and £77.00 from 1 April 2013). These rates happen to be the same as TC11 Class vehicles with an engine-capacity not exceeding 1549cc.

 

MMM magazine used to (and perhaps still does) suggest that motor caravans could legitimately be in TC36, but I've never been convinced that will be true in practice. If a motor caravan has a small enough capacity motor (eg. a DFSK "Cutie"), the TC11 tax rate will be the same TC36's, but that's coincidental.

 

I can envisage potential problems with UK-registering DFSK "Cuties" unless DFSK dealerships and the DVLA keep their wits about them. The "Cutie" is is a petrol-fuelled vehicle with a 1310cc motor having CO2 emissions of 184g/km. Registering a 'car' with that specification in TC48 would (after 1 April 2013) cost £335 for the first year and £220 (annually) for subsequent years.

 

From what I recall, the DVLA's policy that all motor caravans fall into TC10 or TC11 when first registered did not extend beyond 2012. For the types of vehicle on which motor caravans continue to be based (normally diesel-fuelled light commercial vehicles) CO2 emissions are not usually recorded. This makes it impracticable to slot the completed motor caravan into the UK's emissions-related VED classes and, as a consequence, they default into TC11 or TC10.

 

Forum members may recall the controversy some years ago with new VW "California" campers being UK-registered in the emissions-related VED classes where the relevant rates were much higher than TC11. I can see a similar thing happening with "Cuties".

 

(I don't understand why Thurlestone should have wanted to pay £250, as it's plain from the link Keith gave (and V149) that this exceeds the rate for any taxation class (TC10, TC11 or TC36) that one might reasonably expect a motor caravan to be registered in. I could understand why he might seek to pay the TC36 'Euro 4' rate of £135 rather than TC11's £220, but why want to pay £250?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-26 8:31 AM

 

(I don't understand why Thurlestone should have wanted to pay £250, as it's plain from the link Keith gave (and V149) that this exceeds the rate for any taxation class (TC10, TC11 or TC36) that one might reasonably expect a motor caravan to be registered in. I could understand why he might seek to pay the TC36 'Euro 4' rate of £135 rather than TC11's £220, but why want to pay £250?)

 

....I could only make sense of the original post (both overall and in the individual context) if a word had been omitted, viz:

 

When I applied for renewal of my RFL I was asked to pay £250...........

 

.....so this is what I assumed. ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As above AFAIK you should be paying 220pound, I think you will find that if you where charged on emissions it would be considerably more, from my /poor\ memory of last time I looked 450 would be more like maybe higher.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robinhood - 2013-03-26 8:58 AM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-26 8:31 AM

 

(I don't understand why Thurlestone should have wanted to pay £250, as it's plain from the link Keith gave (and V149) that this exceeds the rate for any taxation class (TC10, TC11 or TC36) that one might reasonably expect a motor caravan to be registered in. I could understand why he might seek to pay the TC36 'Euro 4' rate of £135 rather than TC11's £220, but why want to pay £250?)

 

....I could only make sense of the original post (both overall and in the individual context) if a word had been omitted, viz:

 

When I applied for renewal of my RFL I was asked to pay £250...........

 

.....so this is what I assumed. ;-)

 

Yes - that would make more sense, but £250 is still a peculiar amount to be asked (or seek) to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-28 9:40 AM

 

 

Yes - that would make more sense, but £250 is still a peculiar amount to be asked (or seek) to pay.

 

....indeed.

 

Given the circumstances described, one would have thought that the amount requested would have been £220, and the OP was seeking to pay the (early-adopter reduced rate) TC36 amount of £135 applicable to Euro IV LGVs (but not Motorcaravans) registered between 1 March 2003 and 31 December 2006.

 

Whatever, the £220 rate (soon to become £225) would appear to be the correct rate.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-26 8:31 AM

From what I recall, the DVLA's policy that all motor caravans fall into TC10 or TC11 when first registered did not extend beyond 2012.

Can you remember where you found this information, Derek? DVLA tell me that the policy has not changed and that all vehicles first registered with the body type Motor Caravan will placed in the PLG taxation class.

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy_C - 2013-03-28 7:00 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-26 8:31 AM

From what I recall, the DVLA's policy that all motor caravans fall into TC10 or TC11 when first registered did not extend beyond 2012.

Can you remember where you found this information, Derek? DVLA tell me that the policy has not changed and that all vehicles first registered with the body type Motor Caravan will placed in the PLG taxation class.

 

Andy

 

I didn't find that information...

 

In 2007/2008 there was a good deal of forum interest in emissions-related VED bandings and their possible application to motor caravans, the impact of the LEZ on motorhomes, etc. This is an example:

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/An-extra-120-Road-Tax-on-Motorcaravans/8436/#M64473

 

In that thread I suggested that, if a CO2 datum were present on a motor caravan's ECWVTA Certificate of Conformity, it would not be unreasonable for the DVLA to choose to use that information to place the vehicle within the UK's emissions-related VED classes.

 

I remember discussing this off-forum with the late-Mel Eastburn who said he had been advised by the DVLA that "MOTOR CARAVANS" would continue to be placed in either the TC11 or TC10 VED class until at least 2012. I don't recall Mel E mentioning whether there was any particular significance to 2012 (like it was the year after which all motor caravans had to have ECWVTA).

 

You have confirmed from the DVLA that their historical policy of placing motor caravans in TC11 or TC10 has not changed (which is useful to know). But the position in 2013 is really little different to what it was in 2007 - if CO2 information is available on a new motor caravan's ECWVTA CofC, it would be logical to use that CO2 figure to classify the vehicle in the appropriate emissions-related VED class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-29 8:16 AM

You have confirmed from the DVLA that their historical policy of placing motor caravans in TC11 or TC10 has not changed (which is useful to know). But the position in 2013 is really little different to what it was in 2007 - if CO2 information is available on a new motor caravan's ECWVTA CofC, it would be logical to use that CO2 figure to classify the vehicle in the appropriate emissions-related VED class.

Thanks - I tend to agree, now ECWVTA is universal for all new registrations of motor caravans, that it would be logical to place motor caravans in the appropriate emissions related VED band. My query to the DVLA was prompted by seeing the new Lunar Vacanze promoted at the NEC as having VED at £120, putting it in Band E. Wheelhome were making similar claims about their conversions. I therefore assumed that the policy had changed and asked for the details so that I could update my website with the new information. However they informed me that there had been no change so I don't understand how these manufacturers are getting their vehicles into the emissions related VED bands.

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lunar Vacanza is based on a Nissan NV200 Combi MPV and Lunar advertising refers to the converted vehicle as a 'car' (as well as a 'camper'). I suspect the 'car' description is technically more accurate, as Vacanza's inflatable bed means that Vacanza probably doesn't qualify as a "Motor Caravan" as far as the DVLA's requirement criteria for that category are concerned.

 

This is the opposite to the VW California scenario. In that case the base-vehicle's emissions-level produced a more expensive VED charge if the California were UK-registered as a 'car' than as a 'motor caravan'. With Vacanza's low emissions-level, being UK-registered as a 'car', rather than as a 'motor caravan', results in a lower VED charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy_C - 2013-03-29 1:47 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-29 8:16 AM

My query to the DVLA was prompted by seeing the new Lunar Vacanze promoted at the NEC as having VED at £120, putting it in Band E. Wheelhome were making similar claims about their conversions. I therefore assumed that the policy had changed and asked for the details so that I could update my website with the new information. However they informed me that there had been no change so I don't understand how these manufacturers are getting their vehicles into the emissions related VED bands.

 

Andy

 

......by registering the base vehicle before it is converted? (i.e. it will not be shown as a motorcaravan. I'm pretty sure that Wheelhome will do this, though Lunar are a more debatable case. The base vehicles in each case fall into the car-related category - Lunar, for example, using the "Combi" version of the van, and thus would not be treated as LGVs).

 

Edit: I see you were typing in parallel, Derek.

 

I have to admit that I can see no more argument for using emissions-based tax ratings for motorhomes if/when the emissions data is available than there is now. It would surely be (and have been) more logical to tax them on a similar basis to the associated base (largely commercial) vehicle. Hence most would pay a LGV or HGV (non-private) rate, which is still not emissions-related (at least for the time being).

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motor dealers have the capability to register vehicles on-line. However, the information demanded from them by the DVLA will be similar to that required from a private individual UK-registering a vehicle via the paper system.

 

This document describes how to complete form V55/4

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/141647/V355X4.pdf

 

Box 8 on the 3rd page of the document refers to “Type of Body/Vehicle”. If the intention were to UK-register a motorhome, “MOTOR CARAVAN” would normally be put in this field.

 

However, if the person filling in the registration application chooses to describe a vehicle’s body-type differently, there’s nothing to prevent this being done. A Lunar Vacanza’s body-type could be described accurately as “five-door hatchback”.

 

Box 2 on the 3rd page of the document refers to “Tax Class” and the related instruction is to leave this box blank. If this box is left blank, a Vacanza’s body-type is described as “five-door hatchback” and Box 34 of the form (on the 4th page) has a 135g/km CO2 emissions datum in it, there’s no reason to expect the DVLA to place the vehicle in other than Band E of the TC49 tax class.

 

TC49 is described in the DVLA’s form V355/1 (“Notes About Taxation Classes”) as

 

“Effective from 1.3.01. Passenger vehicle in the M1* category weighing not more than 3,500kg revenue weight. Tax rates based on individual vehicle’s CO2 value. Propulsion must be diesel.”

 

The annual VED rate for a Band E TC49 vehicle is (currently) £120.

 

When I was planning to import my Hobby motorhome in 2005, I discussed the registration procedure with a motorhome dealer acquaintance. He advised me (in order to ‘guide’ the DVLA) not to leave Box 2 blank (I put “Private/Light Goods” in that field), to ensure that I put “MOTOR CARAVAN” in Box 8, and to put “EXEMPT – MOTOR CARAVAN” in Box 48. He said that this would minimize the chances that the DVLA would classify the vehicle inappropriately. As my Hobby’s ECWVTA CofC carries no CO2 emissions datum, it’s likely that the DVLA would have classified the vehicle correctly, but we will all be aware from forum postings how many times a motorhome has ended up in TC11 when it should be in TC10.

 

An alternative (as you say) would be to register the vehicle in its original ‘car’ specification before it is converted but, unless you really want to market the converted vehicle as a “Motor Caravan” (which would require the vehicle to conform with the DVLA’s technical criteria), I can’t see much point in doing that. I can imagine small-volume converters doing this (eg. Murvi), but I'm doubtful Lumar would, particularly as I don't see it being necessary with Vacanza.

 

The nearest thing to Vacanza is Wellhouse’s Hyundai i800 camper. According to Wellhouse’s advertising this model has ECWVTA and will be marketed in the UK via Hyundai dealerships. I suspect this model is UK-registered as a ‘motor caravan’, as its CO2 emissions are 197g/km (manual gearbox) or 231g/km (automatic). In TC 49 those emission-levels (especially the latter) would result in higher VED rates than if the vehicle were placed in TC11.

 

I’ve said (several times) in the past that the UK’s VED system is just one way of collecting revenue. It’s not designed to be ‘fair’ and it’s not particularly rational (eg. ‘heavy’ motorhomes pay less VED than ‘light’ ones).

 

But, if the VED system from 2001 is supposed to encourage UK motorists to operate ‘green’ vehicles with a low CO2 output, then it’s logical that, wherever possible, vehicles with a high CO2 output should attract more VED than those that emit less CO2.

 

Motorhomes are leisure vehicles – they are not goods vehicles. Whatever their size and/or weight, motorhomes are intended to carry people not goods. Essentially they are big ‘cars’ and, as such, it would be logical to treat them as such when it comes to CO2 emissions and VED.

 

In fact, if one were to do this under the current VED system, the situation would be even more cock-eyed than now, as the UK’s VED emissions-related classes only apply to vehicles with a ‘revenue weight’ up to 3500kg. A sub-3500kg motorhome with a diesel engine with a high CO2 figure would pay a very hefty VED charge if classified in TC49, whereas an over-3500kg motorhome with much higher CO2 emissions would still end up in TC10.

 

I’m not arguing for a change in how motorhomes are currently treated VED-wise but, if ‘being green’ is held to be important then, as this philosophy has been applied to UK car owners since 2001, if it proved practicable to apply a similar precept to UK owners of ‘big cars’ (ie. motorhomes) in future, it would make some sort of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-30 9:18 AM

 

I’ve said (several times) in the past that the UK’s VED system is just one way of collecting revenue. It’s not designed to be ‘fair’ and it’s not particularly rational (eg. ‘heavy’ motorhomes pay less VED than ‘light’ ones).

 

But, if the VED system from 2001 is supposed to encourage UK motorists to operate ‘green’ vehicles with a low CO2 output, then it’s logical that, wherever possible, vehicles with a high CO2 output should attract more VED than those that emit less CO2.

 

Motorhomes are leisure vehicles – they are not goods vehicles. Whatever their size and/or weight, motorhomes are intended to carry people not goods. Essentially they are big ‘cars’ and, as such, it would be logical to treat them as such when it comes to CO2 emissions and VED.

 

In fact, if one were to do this under the current VED system, the situation would be even more cock-eyed than now, as the UK’s VED emissions-related classes only apply to vehicles with a ‘revenue weight’ up to 3500kg. A sub-3500kg motorhome with a diesel engine with a high CO2 figure would pay a very hefty VED charge if classified in TC49, whereas an over-3500kg motorhome with much higher CO2 emissions would still end up in TC10.

 

I’m not arguing for a change in how motorhomes are currently treated VED-wise but, if ‘being green’ is held to be important then, as this philosophy has been applied to UK car owners since 2001, if it proved practicable to apply a similar precept to UK owners of ‘big cars’ (ie. motorhomes) in future, it would make some sort of sense.

 

.....I think you at least half make my point for me. Such a change would simply result in exchanging one "illogical" arrangement for another. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would also be quite unhelpful, since the emissions of each base vehicle, and its variants, have to be measured, verified, and recorded.

 

Clearly, it will not be the case that all the myriad motorhome variations on, for example, the Ducato base, with/without lutons, with/without AlKo chassis, with/without third axle - plus all their MIRO differences, would have the same CO2 emissions as the basic vans from which they are derived. I have no idea how costly or complex the EU emissions testing and verification system is, but I can't see converters volunteering to submit their vans for assessment. In fact, I'd anticipate quite a fight if any such thing were proposed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-29 2:17 PM

 

The Lunar Vacanza is based on a Nissan NV200 Combi MPV and Lunar advertising refers to the converted vehicle as a 'car' (as well as a 'camper'). I suspect the 'car' description is technically more accurate, as Vacanza's inflatable bed means that Vacanza probably doesn't qualify as a "Motor Caravan" as far as the DVLA's requirement criteria for that category are concerned.

I asked Lunar about this, they were quite categorical that the Vacanza was a motor caravan and registered as such with the DVLA, after conversion.

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy_C - 2013-03-30 4:00 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2013-03-29 2:17 PM

 

The Lunar Vacanza is based on a Nissan NV200 Combi MPV and Lunar advertising refers to the converted vehicle as a 'car' (as well as a 'camper'). I suspect the 'car' description is technically more accurate, as Vacanza's inflatable bed means that Vacanza probably doesn't qualify as a "Motor Caravan" as far as the DVLA's requirement criteria for that category are concerned.

I asked Lunar about this, they were quite categorical that the Vacanza was a motor caravan and registered as such with the DVLA, after conversion.

 

Andy

 

Then there's a contradiction somewhere...

 

If the DVLA's stance is that all new sub-3500kg vehicles that are initially UK-registered with a body-type of "MOTOR CARAVAN" should fall into the TC11 VED class, then that's where Vacanza should go and the annual VED-rate would be £220.

 

The basic reason why such motor-caravans fall into TC11 is because (historically) there's been no CO2 figure available that would allow them to be put in an emissions-related VED class. When there has been a CO2 figure available - as was the case with the MPV-based VW California - the DVLA apparently agreed that this figure could be ignored and the vehicle could be classed in TC11. Presumably that's what happens with the Wellhouse i800.

 

It would (as has already been suggested) be possible for Lunar to register the Nissan NV200 base-vehicle as a 'car' in TC49 and provide an appropriate 'body type', but, pre-conversion, that body-type cannot logically be "MOTOR CARAVAN". Post-conversion, the DVLA could be informed that the original body-type had changed to "MOTOR CARAVAN" but, in principle, the vehicle is now in the wrong VED-class as, being a motor-caravan, it should be in TC11 with all the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, is it not the case that registration is carried out by the selling dealer, and not by Lunar? Might this explain some of the differences, if dealers are continuing to register these vehicle as they always have, rather than as whatever category Lunar may think they have agreed with DVLA - assuming such agreement has, in fact, been reached? It does seem a bit odd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy C said earlier

 

“DVLA tell me that the policy has not changed and that all vehicles first registered with the body type Motor Caravan will placed in the PLG taxation class.

 

and

 

“I asked Lunar about this, they were quite categorical that the Vacanza was a motor caravan and registered as such with the DVLA, after conversion.”

 

The DVLA IS prepared to alter a vehicle’s VED taxation-class. It’s quite common with motorhomes for their MTPLM to be ‘up-plated’ or ‘down-plated’, resulting in their VED taxation-class moving, respectively, from TC11 to TC10, or from TC10 to TC11.

 

There have also been instances where a panel-van conversion has been registered in the TC39 (Light Goods Vehicle Part 1) class and, after the owner has provided proof (eg. photographs) that the vehicle meets the criteria for a “Motor Caravan”, the DVLA will re-classify the vehicle as TC11.

 

The Department for Transport’s “Motor Caravan” criteria are listed on Pages 23 and 24 of this (2003) document and, as far as I’m aware, those requirements have not changed. As I suggested, the Vacanza’s inflatable mattress appears not to comply with the DofT’s “Motor Caravan” sleeping-accommodation criteria.

 

If the DVLA’s policy for an up-to-3500kg MTPLM vehicle that it accepts as being a “Motor Caravan” is that such a vehicle should be VED-classified in TC11, irrespective of its emissions level, then Vacanza should be in TC11 and its current VED annual charge should be £220.

 

If the DVLA chooses to treat Vacanza as a ‘car’ (where the vehicle’s emissions-level will be relevant) rather than a ‘motor caravan’ (where emissions-levels have not counted historically), then the DVLA appears to have changed its policy of lumping all ‘motor caravans’ into TC11.

 

If the DVLA will accept Vacanza as a ‘car’, how does it handle Wellhouse’s i800 that, if similarly treated, would currently attract an annual VED charge of £250 (manual gearbox) or £460 (automatic), never mind a First Year VED rate of, respectively, £460 or £815? If i800 is a ‘motor caravan’ and being classified as TC11, why is Vacanza different?

 

When there was argument over how the VW California should be VED-classified, it transpired that VW dealerships were registering Californias as ‘cars’, resulting in the vehicles ending up in TC49 and a hefty VED charge being imposed based on the California’s substantial emissions-levels. Eventually VW dealerships were instructed to register Californias as ‘motor caravans’, causing them to be classified in TC11. Owners of Californias that had been classified in TC49 applied for them to be re-classified to TC11 and, to the best of my knowledge, the DVLA permitted this to happen.

 

There’s a strong likelihood that, when initially UK-registered, a Vacanza will be classified as TC49 (VED rate = £120) even if “MOTOR CARAVAN” were entered in the body-type field. Unless the DVLA’s registration system ‘says’ “Body-type = MOTOR CARAVAN, MTPLM < 3501kg, must go in TC11”, then TC49 will be the logical choice. I very much doubt there will be that sort of check in the DVLA’s system.

 

Placing Vacanza in TC49 is beneficial to the buyer, whereas doing the same for the Wellhouse i800 or DFSK “Cutie” would be disadvantageous. I don’t see why all motorhomes should be treated equally when it comes to VED, so I really don’t care what the DVLA, Lunar, Wellhouse or DFSK do.

 

It would be easy enough to revise the present archaic TC11/TC10 arrangement and have a dedicated VED category for motor-caravans. How about any vehicle with a body-type of MOTOR CARAVAN” on its registration certificate being VED-charged based on the vehicle’s MPTLM? Let’s say £60 per 1000kg (or part 1000kg).

 

A Motor Caravan with a MPTLM of 3500kg would attract a VED charge of £240 (3 x £60 + 1 x £60), a MPTLM of 4250kg would mean a VED charge of £300 (4 x £60 + 1 x £60), a MPTLM of 7500kg would mean a VED charge of £480 (7 x £60 + 1 x £60). That seems much fairer (and rational) to me that the current daft TC10/TC11 system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I'm resurrecting this thread prompted by the Lunar Vacanza test-report in the current issue of MMM magazine.

 

Earlier in the thread I stated that, if the Vacanza were to be registered as a "Motor Caravan", the VED charge (in 2012-2013) should be £220. However, I overlooked the fact that Vacanza has a dinky little 1.5litre motor and would thus qualify for the Tax Class 12 (PLG) sub-1549cc VED rate of £135. (From 1 April 2013 the Tax Class 11 (PLG) sub-1549cc VED rate increased to £140.)

 

I also suggested that Vacanza's inflatable mattress failed to comply with the DfT's sleeping-accommodation criteria defining a 'motor caravan', but I now note that Vacanza also has a small bed in the elevating roof. So perhaps that's good enough for compliance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I’ve resurrected this thread (again!) because it dealt in some depth with Vehicle Excise Duty for motorhomes.

 

Within the thread Robinhood said

 

“Anything classified and registered as a Motorcaravan on the V5C will not be subject to emissions-related taxing, but fall into taxation class TC11 (for a GVW up to and including 3500kg) and be taxed at the non-graduated PLG (Private Light Goods) rate, or taxation class TC10 (for a GVW of more than 3500kg) and be taxed at the non-graduated PHG (Private Heavy Goods) rate.”

 

This has been the position historically, but I suggested that

 

“...if a CO2 datum were present on a motor caravan's ECWVTA Certificate of Conformity, it would not be unreasonable for the DVLA to choose to use that information to place the vehicle within the UK's emissions-related VED classes.”

 

This now seems to be happening.

 

The October issue of the “Caravan Club Magazine”, in the “Ask your Club” section on page 96, has the following

 

“Question: Has the way motorhomes are dealt with for road tax changed?”

 

Answer: It seems so. Until August motorhome owners paid Vehicle Excise Duty (or ‘car tax’ as the Government now favours calling it) at one of two rates, depending on the vehicle’s weight; Private/Light Goods (class TC11), if the gross vehicle weight is 3500kg or less, and Private/Heavy Goods (class TC10) for heavier ones. The DVLA is now indicating that, since 1 August 2013, newly-registered motorhomes, which have a CO2 emissions figure quoted on their Type Approval Certificate of Conformity, will instead be taxed using the graduated VED regime, which has applied to cars for some time. Those without a CO2 emission figure on the relevant certificate will be taxed as PLG/PHGV as before. Unfortunately, the DVLA neglected to inform the Club, or most of the motorhome industry, ahead of this change. As we went to press, there was significant confusion around this issue. Look out for more details in future issues.”

 

It would seem from the classification advice in the DVLA’s V355/1 document (“Notes about Tax Classes”) that Graduated VED has only been applied to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 3500kg, but there's really nothing to stop the DVLA changing that if it's so wished.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I supect that the whole vehicle taxation question is already under review because the enormous loss in revenue due to the huge number of zero road tax vehicles being sold.

 

The whole concept of varying rates of of road tax was illogical bearing no relation to the annual rate of emmisions each vehicle was actually causing. The Fuel Duty Tax was a much fairer way of dealing with the matter.

 

The huge road tax on thirsty vehicles means that once past middle age their value will plummet leading to premature scrappage. The energy wasted is almost certainly more polluting than the fuel they might burn during a sensible lifetime.

 

Our sytem of taxing and insuring individual vehicles stops me owning several vehicles, each appropriate to their use. Ninety percent of my needs could be met by a ver basic battery powered by 3 seat vehicle. Once in a while I make a long jouney when an elderly more comfortable car would be fine. My motocaravan only covers about 1K ayear in the UK, thats a about 25P a mile.

 

Rant over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...